include: result confusion?

Hello!

When re-evaluating test results from the new libspf2 release, I get
this:

I have an spf record that includes: another domain. Say


foo.example -> v=spf1 ... include:bar.example ...

And bar.example exists in the DNS (with other record types, such as A),
but has no TXT or SPF records.

I read the RFC in a way that that should result in PermError, from the
table in section 5.2 (recursive result of None should cause the include
mechanism to throw PermError).

A test for that passed before the update (with libspf2 1.2.5), however
fails now.

Am I correct in my interpretation? Should this get fixed again, so that
a None from the included record should result in a PermError overall?

Kind regards,

Hannah.